From: Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 21:25:25 GMT
Subject: Re: git-rev-list in local commit order
Message-ID: <1629.10.10.10.24.1116278725.squirrel@linux1>
In-Reply-To: <1116195235.11872.213.camel@tglx>

On Sun, May 15, 2005 6:13 pm, Thomas Gleixner said:
> Last try.
>
> A repository Id makes it possible to identify workflows in and across
> repositories.

Sorry, your proposal falls short, accurate work flow would allow you to
show every repository a commit passed through on the way to its final
destination.  Your proposal does not allow that; as discussed.  Nor does
it handle multiple projects or branches within a single repository.

As noted by others, using git often means the creation of temporary
repositories, hardly something that deserves an identifier.  Git, by
design, doesn't give a hoot about individual repositories.

And you also haven't addressed what to do when someone else uses say,
Linus' repoid, as their own.  It seems like a risk to have the operation
of each repository depend on a value anyone else can duplicate.  Linus
can't control what repoid everyone else uses, he can control the time on
his own machine.  Unique repoid's are an illusion.

> This information is valuable for me and others due to already discussed
> reasons.

Why should everyone else manage repoids in their own personal repository
for you; what value will _they_ get out of it?

> I accept that is irrelevant for you.

Personally I don't really care either way.  But you haven't given one real
example where it is actually needed to do useful work.  Making pretty
graphs on a web page doesn't count if they're not useful to anyone.  You
shouldn't force everyone else to manage repoid's unless there is some
value for _them_.

If you're still going to pursue this, at least make sure repoid is not
mandatory.  If a local repository identifier isn't defined, don't create a
repoid line in the commits.

Sean